| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Board Votes .xxx Down (9-5) -- Crawford Dissents
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Michael, I understand the argument for a "free market" TLD process - but why do the advocates of that concept go to the wall over it regarding what is arguably the poster-child for World's Dumbest Domain Idea? It seems so tangled, as in "Yes, we have a restrictive process now, but we shouldn't, but because we want an open process, but within the restrictive process, we should approve the World's Dumbest Domain Idea, which will just happen to make those behind it a boatload of money because the process is restrictive now, but it shouldn't be restrictive ..."
Umm, what? Who benefits? (in many senses of that phrase ...)
And if there's an open process, who gets: .xxx .porn .sex .erotica .adult .pron .p0rn .prn
and so on ...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should ICANN care whether an idea is dumb or not? If an idea is not illegal - and .xxx was not illegal - then who made ICANN the internet nanny of naughty bits?
What's next, banning TLDs applications because they are considered sacreligious? Advocate Wicca? Are used to promote business on the Lord's day? Or are places where people talk about Puppy fumping?
ICANN *is* already deeply engaged in content regulation - every "sponsored" top level domain is regulation of content. .museum, .coop, .travel, .aero, .mobi, .pro, etc are all forms of content based regulation of the internet.
The complaint that I perceive was made by both Susan Crawford and Peter Dengate Thrush was that ICANN must become blind to use and look only at technical capacity of the applicant. In other words, ICANN should ask if the applicant can properly adhere to written, broadly accepted technical standards. If the answer is yes, then the application is sufficient.
Instead ICANN is making decisions based on the applicant's intended use, its business plan, and its financial backing.
On what basis does ICANN obtain the legal authority to make that choice, a choice that amounts to life or death for an applicant because there is viable alternative on the internet to the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone.
ICANN will soon be asked to create "sponsored" TLDs for religious groups. The .xxx swirl and debate will become merely a molehill compaired to that which will arise when someone applies for .islam or .jew or .christian.
Moreover, some board members (and I *did* read the entire transcript) did cite concerns that .xxx might have engaged ICANN in some sort of responsibility for content. Have board members forgotten that ICANN is the source of the IP addresses through which no only pornmeisters, but also spammers and phishers and other unworthies operate on the internet?
ICANN has never figured out the principles to guide its decisions. The decision about .xxx was a celebration of ad hoc, emotional choice over steadfast adherence to broadly accepted principles.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
